A proposed Brazilian copyright law overhaul would ensure that DRM can't take …

Share this story

Brazil has proposed a broad update to its copyright law (Portuguese) and it contains a surprising idea: penalize anyone who "hinders or impedes" fair use rights or obstructs the use of work that has already fallen into the public domain.

A huge win for consumers? Sure, but it gets better. A moment's thought reminds us that most DRM schemes will eventually run afoul the above provisions, since they apply in perpetuity. That DRMed music file will still be DRMed even after the song has fallen into the public domain.

So Brazil wants to ensure that DRM "has time-limited effects that correspond to the period of the economic rights over the work, performance, phonogram or broadcast." Once copyright has expired, DRM should, too.

As if that's not enough, Brazil says that DRM can be bypassed in order to make any "fair" use of the work or in cases where the copyright has expired but the DRM has not.

Contrast this with the US approach to copyright in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which said nothing about time-limited DRM and made circumvention illegal in nearly all cases, even when the intended use of the material would be legal.

Brazil's proposal could be spun as something hostile to rightsholders, but it's not that simple. The law does provide protection for DRM; in general, it is illegal to remove, modify, bypass, or impair such anti-copying technology. It's just that rightsholders can't use DRM as a digital lock to give themselves more control over a work through technology than they have under the law.

Treaties

While some content industry lobbyists like to make arguments about "living up to international norms" on DRM to suggest that countries need to take a hard line on anticircumvention, the "international norms" allow plenty of leeway. The WIPO Internet Treaties, one of the key parts of this international consensus, require signatories to "provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law."

DRM must be defended only when it restricts acts that are "not permitted by law." Since the law in places like Brazil, the US, and many other countries contains fair use or fair dealing provisions, those countries are authorized to allow DRM circumvention for those uses as long as general bypassing is disallowed.

Given the nature of most fair use laws, plenty of murky cases will have to be examined by the courts. That's a slow, messy solution, but one that allows for flexibility and creativity; the "clean" alternative of simply outlawing DRM circumvention almost completely leads to the absurd situation where A US citizen can legally rip a CD to an iPod but breaks the law when doing the same with a DVD.

Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor who highlighted the new proposal, sums it up as a properly balanced approach that doesn't buy into the "more is better" approach to copyright protections. "In other words, the Brazilian proposals recognizes what the Supreme Court of Canada stated several years ago," he writes, "over-protection is just as harmful as under-protection."

DRM needs to be banned period. The fact is that there is NO reason why you should have to keep your game DVD in the drive, where it can be easily scratched, after a game is installed to your hard drive.There is NO reason why you should have to be on the internet at all times in order to play your legally bought game.There is NO reason why DRM is necessary period, seeing as how it is always, repeat, A L W A Y S cracked.

These game, music and movie people are just going to have to realize that we are living in a digital age where movies, music and games are NOT worth as much as they used to be, and lower their prices to take that simple fact into account.

DRM needs to be banned period. The fact is that there is NO reason why you should have to keep your game DVD in the drive, where it can be easily scratched, after a game is installed to your hard drive.There is NO reason why you should have to be on the internet at all times in order to play your legally bought game.There is NO reason why DRM is necessary period, seeing as how it is always, repeat, A L W A Y S cracked.

These game, music and movie people are just going to have to realize that we are living in a digital age where movies, music and games are NOT worth as much as they used to be, and lower their prices to take that simple fact into account.

And DRM did not stop pirates from copying anything. It just hurts legitimate users.

DRM needs to be banned period. The fact is that there is NO reason why you should have to keep your game DVD in the drive, where it can be easily scratched, after a game is installed to your hard drive.There is NO reason why you should have to be on the internet at all times in order to play your legally bought game.There is NO reason why DRM is necessary period, seeing as how it is always, repeat, A L W A Y S cracked.

These game, music and movie people are just going to have to realize that we are living in a digital age where movies, music and games are NOT worth as much as they used to be, and lower their prices to take that simple fact into account.

And DRM did not stop pirates from copying anything. It just hurts legitimate users.

DRM is not meant to prevent people who are determined to crack it.

DRM is implemented to prevent less tech savvy or the majority from sharing videos, music, software, and etc.

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

This is where pirates miss the point.

Also the banning of DRM means that OSX can not be software locked to Mac computer systems.

DRM is implemented to prevent less tech savvy or the majority from sharing videos, music, software, and etc.

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

This is where pirates miss the point.

Let's not label everybody who is against DRM a pirate, shall we?

DRM is the tool that IP owners uses to control content. I'll give you this : For the software companies it really is a gambit to try and stop casual infringement. It has a somewhat mitigated success, as those schemes get cracked pretty fast.

For all others? Just a way to license the same IP to multiple sellers and has the added bonus of vendor lock-in, enabling IP owners to resell the same IP over and over to the same customer. It's all about maximizing profit, not stopping piracy. Else, services like Netlix and Spotify would be available to the whole world. DRM trumps your fair uses rights and possibly render public domain obsolete. Tell me why I should be for DRM again?

"provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors"

What does effective technological measures means? if DRM ripping can be automated, does it means that the technological measure is no longer effective an then you can rip it for fair use without repercussion?

DRM is implemented to prevent less tech savvy or the majority from sharing videos, music, software, and etc.

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

This is where pirates miss the point.

Let's not label everybody who is against DRM a pirate, shall we?

DRM is the tool that IP owners uses to control content. I'll give you this : For the software companies it really is a gambit to try and stop casual infringement. It has a somewhat mitigated success, as those schemes get cracked pretty fast.

For all others? Just a way to license the same IP to multiple sellers and has the added bonus of vendor lock-in, enabling IP owners to resell the same IP over and over to the same customer. It's all about maximizing profit, not stopping piracy. Else, services like Netlix and Spotify would be available to the whole world. DRM trumps your fair uses rights and possibly render public domain obsolete. Tell me why I should be for DRM again?

To be fair, DRM doesn't make the public domain obsolete, since I'm quite certain that I will never see another work enter the public domain. So since stuff already in the public domain isn't DRMed, and nothing which is DRMed will ever be in the public domain, DRM doesn't have any impact on the public domain.

It's just that rightsholders can't use DRM as a digital lock to give themselves more control over a work through technology than they have under the law.

that DVD Region Locks are out then, because it gives rights holders more control over the work through technology than they have under the law. If I've legally purchased a DVD under Brazilian law could they use DRM from preventing me from enjoying it on my legally purchased DVD player because it was "intended" for a different region?

I would rephrase that to say that DRM is designed to make a user take an assertive act to violate copyright.

Is my copying music from a CD to my mp3 player (or phone) a violation of copyright, even though I am not redistributing it? DRM is not designed to make copyright violation an assertive act, it is designed to disallow you use of content in ways they deem unapproved. It is, in effect, an unofficial expansion of copyright.

Quote:

It's like a speed limit sign: you can't say "I didn't know what the speed limit is" if there's a posted sign.

Not quite, since the sign doesn't try to stop you from speeding. DRM not only tries to stop you from speeding, it won't let you drive your car on certain, unapproved roads.

Quote:

Yeah, they want to make it hard to do easily for even the dedicated hackers, but I don't think anyone in the industry believes in "unbreakable" DRM.

They dream of and desire it. I suspect they see things like OnLive as the way forward, where you own nothing and pay monthly for everything. Rent seeking behavior that flies in the face of what Copyright was supposed to provide.

Also the banning of DRM means that OSX can not be software locked to Mac computer systems.

What is wrong with that? I'd love to run OS X next to Ubuntu and Windows, only a Mac is too expensive for me. I'm forced to buy a Mac if I were to want to run OS X(or get a Hackintosh, which isn't viable).

Quote:

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

To be fair, DRM doesn't make the public domain obsolete, since I'm quite certain that I will never see another work enter the public domain. So since stuff already in the public domain isn't DRMed, and nothing which is DRMed will ever be in the public domain, DRM doesn't have any impact on the public domain.

This is the most depressing fact about current copyright law. Few people alive today will ever see a copyrighted work enter the public domain. Life + 70 years is an insane length of time to have a work copyrighted. I long for the days of 14 years with an option to renew for another 14 years.

DRM is implemented to prevent less tech savvy or the majority from sharing videos, music, software, and etc.

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

It doesn't really do that either. I know many very not-tech-savvy people who break DRM all the time without realizing it. Tools to strip videos from DVD's for iPods, or bypassing DRM on audio files (which still exists) for instance.

It reminds me of organic farmers being forced to burn their crops because genetic patented seeds blow into their fields. It's harder to be legal than it is to be illegal.

DRM is implemented to prevent less tech savvy or the majority from sharing videos, music, software, and etc.

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

This is where pirates miss the point.

Let's not label everybody who is against DRM a pirate, shall we?

DRM is the tool that IP owners uses to control content. I'll give you this : For the software companies it really is a gambit to try and stop casual infringement. It has a somewhat mitigated success, as those schemes get cracked pretty fast.

For all others? Just a way to license the same IP to multiple sellers and has the added bonus of vendor lock-in, enabling IP owners to resell the same IP over and over to the same customer. It's all about maximizing profit, not stopping piracy. Else, services like Netlix and Spotify would be available to the whole world. DRM trumps your fair uses rights and possibly render public domain obsolete. Tell me why I should be for DRM again?

DRM not need be eliminated but it needs to be modified.

DRM should not in anyway hinder the user. (Requiring a CD to run a game, being online, etc)

What we need is a solution both parties can agree to. One that allows for full fair use but also one that allows entertainment companies to protect their end of the fair use agreement.

We need to be going after people who are genuinely distributing content illegally not the ones that are downloading it.

I'm a strong advocate of reform on this issue but we have to be fair to both parties.

Not just say no entertainment companies should not go after websites who's main purpose is to illegally distribute material and no entertainment companies can not do anything to protect their works.

DRM is implemented to prevent less tech savvy or the majority from sharing videos, music, software, and etc.

As easy as it is for a tech savvy user to crack a file to the computer noob its the equivalent of breaking into a safe.

It doesn't really do that either. I know many very not-tech-savvy people who break DRM all the time without realizing it. Tools to strip videos from DVD's for iPods, or bypassing DRM on audio files (which still exists) for instance.

It reminds me of organic farmers being forced to burn their crops because genetic patented seeds blow into their fields. It's harder to be legal than it is to be illegal.

As far as Brazil's copyright laws go.. they sound pretty good to me..

Brazil's law is a good one I can agree to as well. Its more then fair.

Also the banning of DRM means that OSX can not be software locked to Mac computer systems.

which would change nothing except removing the DRM bit. It would still be a license violation to buy OSX licenses, install them on non-mac hardware and sell the results onwards and it would still be a violation for individuals to make hackintoshes. In both cases you are still in breach of the terms of a license agreement for a copyrighted work. Just no DRM is all.

This is about standing up and defending people's rights, not changing copyright law or making violating it less illegal....

Of course, the media companies have zero interest in fair copyright or DRM. All they want is more, more, more: more control, more money, more restrictions, more ridiculous laws.

The ACTA backdoor signatories will go after Brazil with a vengeance - after all, they can't have any examples of sensible copyright and IP laws out there. That will expose them for the asinine, greedy bastards they really are.

We should give the media companies a taste of their own medicine: strip all copyright from media; DRM our payments, then make it a violation of federal law to bypass the DRM so they can get paid.

But on a non-facetious note, I'm in favor of fair copyright and DRM. What exactly that is can be argued, but everyone (except the RIAA and MPAA) realizes the current setup is not at all fair. How about: all copyrights are invalid until approved, then expire between six months after that for software (the shortest) to six years after that (for books and paintings). Any DRM in effect past that period is null and void, and completely legal to bypass. Apply both of these retroactively. Any DRM that prevents a use not specifically designated as illegal (no gray area BS) is invalid and can be bypassed. No future DRM can be applied for uses specified as legal.

But on a non-facetious note, I'm in favor of fair copyright and DRM. What exactly that is can be argued, but everyone (except the RIAA and MPAA) realizes the current setup is not at all fair. How about: all copyrights are invalid until approved, then expire between six months after that for software (the shortest) to six years after that (for books and paintings). Any DRM in effect past that period is null and void, and completely legal to bypass. Apply both of these retroactively. Any DRM that prevents a use not specifically designated as illegal (no gray area BS) is invalid and can be bypassed. No future DRM can be applied for uses specified as legal.

I've always thought that a fair use for DRM was in rentals. If you want to rent it (some song, movie what ever) then some form of DRM (one available in a freely implementable way, not vendor locked in) could be used to enforce the terms of the rental agreement.

If however you buy it outright (i.e. you pay full price not a reduced rental fee), then it's yours and no DRM should be allowed. Copyright still exists, you still have to abide by the law, but by the same token you can't have your rights stripped by a technological barrier and especially you can't lose access to your purchase when the company that sold it to you goes out of business 5 years later and shuts down their authentication servers.

The only problem with this that I can really see is that all of a sudden our ever loving content industry would suddenly stop selling us things and everything would only ever be available for rent <sigh>

It doesn't really do that either. I know many very not-tech-savvy people who break DRM all the time without realizing it. Tools to strip videos from DVD's for iPods, or bypassing DRM on audio files (which still exists) for instance.

I have to disagree with you there. Either you know a lot more DRM-savvy people than the average person, or I know a lot less. Heck, I'm very tech-savvy and just built an HTPC, and I still can't figure out how to get my DVDs onto my hard drive to save me the trouble of changing discs. I've tried three or four programs like Handbrake, but I still don't know how to get around the built-in encryption, and the goody two-shoes in me doesn't want to research the illegal ways to do it.

Quote:

It reminds me of organic farmers being forced to burn their crops because genetic patented seeds blow into their fields. It's harder to be legal than it is to be illegal.

I can't disagree with that statement 100%, but I have to argue that it's much simpler for me to just pop in a new DVD disc in order to watch it, compared to the time it would take to figure out how to get the video onto my hard drive (not to mention the large amount of time and disk space that can take).

Quote:

As far as Brazil's copyright laws go.. they sound pretty good to me..

Did no one else catch how this is a _proposed_ law? This isn't how it works in Brazil yet, but due to the wording of the article's headline, most people seem to be assuming that this is how copyright law currently works there.

The only problem with this that I can really see is that all of a sudden our ever loving content industry would suddenly stop selling us things and everything would only ever be available for rent <sigh>

Isn't that more or less what the content industries are trying to do now? They're just calling it licensing.